Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Guys,   Following in from my 17 page thread, that dates back over ten years, I am starting a new thread, at the suggestion of the site team. My issue relates the a) service charges relating to the Leasehold flat I bought back in 2006 b) a Managing Agent who is of questionable abilities as a manager of our block of flats. The Managing Agent has claimed £6k in fees to which (I think, as does the new Landlord) he was not entitled. I am wanting to get it back, and/or the fees on my account calculating properly which would leave me with a credit balance.  I am recently in receipt of a 4th claim relating to this dispute, with two of the previous three going 'no where'. The other one they won in default on 2011, but I successfully had that set-aside.They have not given me the money back though. It all started due to poor management of the block, and it transpired upon scrutiny that the management arrangements appear to be unenforceable prior to 2014. It's very complicated. This information is required simply posted, and not as a PDF, so here goes:   1.       BlurredFX Service Charge Saga 2.       Sept 2006 a.       In 2006 BFX buys a leasehold flat. His solicitor advises him that Ground Rent is payable to Landlord-one and Service Charges are payable, but to be wary of the service charges, as he is unable to confirm how they are being administrated. b.       BFX is sent a bill for service charges from PQR Managing Agent. BFX enquires as the legitimacy of the service charges, but is unable to get a satisfactory answer. The service charge requests are not complicit with the required legislation – such as the name of the Landlord. They are served in the name of ABC Management Company Ltd c/o PQR Managing Agents. c.       ABC Management Company has two Directors, both residents of the block in which BFX resides and to which this dispute relates. d.       Landlord-one is absent, except for Ground Rent requests. 3.       2006-2009 a.       Despite written and verbal requests, BFX refuses to pay any service charges until ABC Management Company are properly authorised by Landlord-one – because without such, he has no recourse or way to complain. b.       Demands are not complicit with the legislation. c.       The property was not properly maintained. For example, the lease obligations for an internal redecoration every five years had no been met. The obligations to maintain the exterior of the had not been met, and the timber double glazing was starting to rot quite badly. 4.       2008/2009/2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent Ltd buys out PQR Managing Agent (a sole trader, I believe). They seem to operate interchangeably for a few years, using different headed paper along the way. They seem to be interchangeable. It is the same personnel. 5.       June 2009 a.       TUV Managing Agent LTD, on behalf of ABC Management Company Ltd, file a court claim against BFX. [CLAIM2009] b.       BFX asks them to fully particularise their claim, including asking for details of who authorised them to manage the building and various other pertinent questions. 6.       10th August 2009 a.       BFX sends CPR18 – request for information to TUV Managinig Agent c/o ABC Management Company 7.       2009 a.       Hearing is scheduled for Jan 2010 [CLAIM2009] 8.       February 2010 a.       There is a hearing. b.       Ref: [CLAIM2009] c.       From the Court: IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim be stayed to enable the Parties to endeavour to reach a settlement if no application is made to restore by Tuesday 6th April 2010, the claim be struck out 9.       24th March 2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent sends BFX an agreement to sign, agreeing to pay. BFX does not sign the document. 10.   2010 – 30th or 31st March 2010 a.       BFX attends a meeting with a Director of ABC Management Company and Director of TUV Managing Agent. b.       BFX outlines his position, and suggests a verbal agreement to pay from 2006-2010 once the management of the block is properly administrated – my preference being the ‘RTM route’. c.       The other people at the meeting do not appear to understand. 11.   1st April 2010 a.       TUV Managing Agent on behalf of ABC Management Company write to the Court, asking that the claim be restored, claiming BFX has remained silent. b.       Notice of allocation from the Court, dated 15th April, for a hearing in July. 12.   July 2010 a.       On the day, a lady at the Court informs BFX that TUV Managing Agent has been on the phone, and said that BFX has paid the money and to cancel the hearing. b.       BFX had not paid any money at all. c.       Nothing more is heard of [CLAIM2009] 13.   6th October 2010 a.       ABC Management Co c/o TUV Managing Agent send a letter, after the Freehold Reversion of BFX’s block comes up for sale. TUV Managing Agent outline three options – do nothing, RTM, or buy the freehold. b.       BFX opines that it is not good advice, but is ignored. 14.   December 2010 a.       BFX’s health starts to visibly deteriorate. 15.   Late April 2011 a.       BFX is blue-lighted into the regional hospital, as witnessed by Director of ABC Management Company. 16.   Early May 2011 a.       TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company, commence a new claim against BFX – literally within a week or so of BFX going into Hospital! b.       This is [CLAIM2011] 17.   August 2011 a.       TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company are awarded Judgement in Default. b.       BFX remains critically ill in Hospital. 18.   September 2011 a.       Letter from BFX’s Mortgage Company-One to BFX b.       “We have been advised by TUV Managing Agent that your Ground Rent and Service Charges of £6k-ish has not been paid.” Iy goes on to say pay them. 19.   September 2011 a.       In reference to [CLAIM2011] a letter from TUV Managing Agent to BFX’s Mortgage Company-One states: b.       “As the managing agents of BFX’s Block, I write to advise you that your client, BFX, is in severe arrears and therefore is in breach of his lease. c.       “A County Court Judgement was served on August 2011 in the sum of £6k-ish. A Copy of the Judgement is enclosed for your reference. d.       “I therefore request that this payment is now made in full by your client within 21 days, failure to do so will result in further action being taken and a Section 146Notice [sic] being served on Mr Piggin” 20.   October 2011 a.       Letter from TUV Managing Agent to BFX’s Mortgage Company-One states: b.       “Further to your letter of 25th October 2011, please find below the details of the bank account to make payment of the outstanding service charge and ground rent for the above property” [BFX’s property] c.       Mortgage Company-one makes a payment to ABC Management Co c/o TUV Managing Agent, for the claim amount. 21.   January 2012 a.       Landlord-one sells his freehold to Landlord-two. BFX receives a letter from Landlord-one’s solicitor. It states: b.       “…we write to advise that the benefit of the receipt of the ground rent payable under such Lease has now been transferred to Landlord-two to whom all future payments of ground rent including all arrears and the amount due from 2st January 2012 shall be payable to and whose receipt shall be a full and absolute discharge under such Lease” 22.   February 2012 a.       Landlord-one sells his freehold to Landlord-two. b.       Landlord-two writes to BFX stating that he owes Ground Rent since 2006. c.       That letter from Landlord-two to BFX also states d.       “While we have no wish to disrupt and current workable management arrangements we do have concerns in that respect as the building is not being managed strictly in accordance with the Lease provisions and although we would have no great objection to ABC Management Company Ltd continuing with the management of the structural and communal areas of the building we would be happier if the present informal arrangement, which could in theory be discontinued at any time by any party, could be formalised either by a Deed of Variation being entered into in connection with each individual leaseholder or by a complete Deed of Variation being entere into by all parties. We hope you will support a Deed of Variation and would request your written views in that respect. e.       “We were in direct communication with PQR Managing Agent prior to completion of our purchase and enclose for your information copy letter written to that firm on 11th January 2012. PQR Managing Agent have confirmed they have never received any ground rent payments and they are raising our ‘insurance concerns’ with X Insurer.” f.        The letter referred to above also asks PQR Managing Agent to make certain material disclosures to X Insurer. g.       In his letter to TUV/PQR Managing Agent, dated 11th of Jan, Landlord-two also states, h.       “As management is current [sic] carried out by you on behalf of ABC Management Company Limited, who are not named in the Lease and therefore maintenance obligations are unenforceable against or by that company, you may wish to give consideration to:” It then proposes a) a deed of variation, or b) Landlord-two becomes a client of TUV Property Management, and long term management is done that way. i.         The letter from Landlord-two continues: j.         “Finally, while we appreciate that you are not authorised to collect ground rent and indeed we assume you have not therefore been collecting ground rent, can you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt that you have never collected any ground rent payments from any leaseholder in connection with this building or, if you have collected any ground rent payments, can you please let us have details of such payments.” 23.   October 2012 a.       BFX makes an application for the Judgement to be set-aside, an account of his being hospitalised almost constantly since April 2011. b.       A hearing is scheduled. 24.   January 2013 a.       There is a hearing, the Judgement against BFX is set-aside. TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company do not attend. BFX has until February to file his Defence and Counterclaim, which he does. 25.   March 2013 a.       AQ’s submitted, and hearing scheduled. b.       TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company is ordered to pay the hearing fee. 26.   18th April 2013 a.       Court orders unless TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company pays the fees, the claim shall be struck out. b.       Letter from the Court: BFX’s counterclaim remains listed for May 2013. There is a hearing, and TUV Managing Agent, on behalf of ABC Management Company fail to attend. 27.   May 2013 a.       After a hearing, where TUV Managing Agent and ABC Management Company fail to attend, the Court orders: “The claim be adjourned generally with the liberty to restore on the application of either party.” 28.   2nd half of 2013 and 2014 a.       Various letter from TUV Property Management, and meetings of residents. It is decided by Leaseholders in BFX’s block that we should exercise our ‘right-to-manage’. 29.   17th February 2014 a.       Letter from a solicitor dealing with the RTM progress, it says Landlord-two now has 28 days to file a response. 30.   4th June 2014 a.       BFX Receives a letter from TUV Property Management it states: b.       “Please find enclosed a new standing order form for BFX’s block. c.       “We have opened a new current account for BFX’s block due to the Right to Manage coming into effect in 1st July 2014 d.       “The new standing order is to commence on 1st July 2014…” e.       It continues with pleasantries about cancelling old SO etc. 31.   2nd July 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.3k, the description on the invoice being ‘Account Adjustment: Transfer from previous Management Company’ 32.   2nd July 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.6k, the description on the invoice being ‘Account Adjustment: For period 4th July 2014 – 30th September 2014’ 33.   28th July 20014 (1) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.5k, having added £12. It states ‘Account Adjustment: Title Register’. b.       IT ALSO SHOWS BFX’s FIRST PAYMENT of 1 month’s service charges to ABC RTM Company Ltd as ‘Payment Received’ 34.   28th July 20014 (2) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £3.8k, having added £360 court fees. It states ‘Account Adjustment: Court Fees’ 35.   28th July 20014 (3) a.       ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX for £4k, having added £120 in court fees 36.   11th August 2014 a.       The newly formed ABC RTM Company Limited (c/o TUV Managing Agent) sends an invoice to BFX adding another £85. Description: ‘HM Court fee as fee is £205 not £120 – difference’ 37.   August 2014 a.       Following another emergency admission to Hospital for BFX, ABC RTM Company Limited immediately file a claim [CLAIM2014] for alleged arrears from 2011-2014. Approximately £4k. 38.   November 2014 a.       From the Court: Claim [CLAIM2014] stayed until February 2015, by which time the Defendant is to serve his Defence and in default shall file and serve further medical evidence supporting his inability to do the same. 39.   September 2015 a.       Claim stayed until end of October 2015 40.   November 2015 a.       Claim stayed until Jan 2016 41.   8th January 2016 a.       BFX makes an application for summary judgement [of CLAIM2014] that the claim be struck out, as it is a relitigation of [CLAIM2011] 42.   Feb 2016 a.       Transferred to local Court. 43.   31st March 2016 a.       There was a hearing of my application (I think) b.       From the Court, re [CLAIM2014] c.       IT IS ORDERED THAT d.       The hearing of today’s date be adjourned e.       The Claimant to file and serve a fully Particulars (detailed) Particulars of claim [sic] to set out the basis to the claim, entitlement of the Claimant to recover sums from the Defendant, detailing sums recovered and any outstanding payment plus other details which the Claimand may advise to address by 22 april 2016 f.        The Defendant to file and serve a detailed defence addressing the Particulars of Claim in paragraph 2 above by 12 may 2016 g.       If the Defendant wishes the application of today’s date to be relisted (upon consideration of the fully particularised Particulars of Claim), the Defendant should write to the court, at the same time as filing a defence, with a copy of this order, asking for the Court to relist the application for hearing with an estimated length of 1 hour 30 minutes (30 minutes of it being reading time). In the event that the application is relisted, both parties to file and serve detailed statements addressing the subject matter of the application 7 clear days before the hearing. 44.   17th May 2016 a.       From the court: b.       “IT IS ORDERED THAT The Defendants application be relisted in accordance with the order made on the 31st March 2016 on Monday 27th June at 15:30pm with an elh of 30 minutes,not to be heard by telephone” [sic]” 45.   June 2016 a.       I think there was a hearing, possibly. I am looking for the paperwork. I attended the hearing directly from a different regional Hospital to the usual one, where I was being treated for a brain infection. We got our heads bashed together by a clearly infuriated Judge, Judge advised ABC RTM c/o TUV Managing Agents to get a solicitor, tells BFX to be clearer in what he says. Nothing further was heard. Until… 46.   7th April 2017 a.       BFX has an invoice for 1066.00 from TUV Managing Agent c/o ABC RTM Company Ltd 47.   August 2017 a.       BFX mortgage sold from ‘Mortgage Company-one’ to ‘Mortgage Company-two’ 48.   13th September 2017 a.       BFX received an invoice for £5,000 for his share for new windows to BFX’s block. It seemed complicit with s20 LTA 1985 etc. BFX pays £5k. b.       There was a lot of confusion during this process, I am pinning down the paperwork, but it was paid. The total invoice was not split as per the lease – Leaseholders were asked for funds on a per window basis, but the Lease says the total should be summed and divided by the number of units. c.       N.B. BFX’s flat is in a conservation area, and the price reflects expensive windows, as specified by local planners. There were other attempts to put in cheap, nasty windows, but BFX was able to stop this by making informal representations to the local Borough Council – who in turn contacted TUV Managing Agents, who in turn eventually put in a proper planning application for proper windows, which was approved. d.       There was a lot of confusion during this process, I am pinning down the paperwork, but it was paid. The total invoice was not as per the lease – Leaseholders were asked for funds on a per window basis, but the Lease says the total should be summed and divided by the number of units. 49.   12th October 2017 a.       BFX receives invoice for service charges (or statement of account): £4,800 approx. No payments are made by BFX 50.   25h September 2018 a.       BFX receives an invoice (or statement of account) for a total of £492. b.       It appears they have decided not to collect this amount 51.   March 2020 a.       Claim2020 from ABC RTM Company Limited c/o Company Director (not TUV Property Management) for £890 plus £70 Court fee. BFX has not been paying his fees because the management of the block is terrible.
    • Yes I know.  We would like the story posted up plainly on a post in a new thread with no attachment simply a step-by-step account of what happened and what led to the litigation. I think we can understand why this thread has gone on for 18 pages
    • I think he's hoping the attached pdf would be a satisfactory starting point for a new thread?
    • Please start a new thread so that you can post up a nice brief bullet pointed chronology of what happened which led to the litigation.
    • Hope it all goes well for her CB, let us know how she gets on.
  • Our picks

CELTICFAIRPLAY

Beware Royal And Sun Alliance Buildings Insurance

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 575 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Recently we had a blocked waste water pipe that carried water away from our kitchen (sink & dishwasher) it was concealed behind the fitted kitchen and in the next room (toilet) the same pipe was boxed in. (the pipe ran the width of our house)

 

To cut a long story short ,due to the blockage the pipe split on the joint and had been leaking(unknown to us)for some time,eventually,it soaked through the ceiling boards and last Sunday the dishwasher kindly poured its water discharge via the damaged pipe into the room below bringing down part of the ceiling below.

We called in a builder on the Sunday afternoon to make good emergency repairs and discover the source of the leak to which he had to smash the tiles covering the boxed pipework in the bathroom to access the boxed in pipe.

We contacted RSA on the Monday morning to lodge our claim......beware

 

They say leaking internal pipes are WEAR AND TEAR and are not covered in buildings insurance ,on page 16 of their booklet they have a vague exclusion statement which they claim covers this incident

"Any loss ,damage,liabiliy,cost or expense of any kind caused by resulting from wear and tear,depreciation,corrosion,rusting,damp,insects,vermin,fungus,condensation,fading,frost or anything that happens gradually,including the renovation or restoration caused or any consequential loss.

 

I explained that it was not wear and tear but pressure due to the blockage put the plastic waste pipe joint under pressure resulting in the leakage and damage,not only will they not pay fro the pipe to be repaired or renewed they refuse to pay for the cost of reboxing in the pipe and tiling !!

 

Be warned of ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCE .:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they covering you for the clean up costs, e.g. the ceiling replacement?


If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They state that they will only cover actual damage caused by the water to the "building structure",ie the repair and decoration of the ceiling of the room below or anything under the buildings policy directly effected by the result of/following the actual leak,any cost related to the accessing of ,discovery of,or repair of the source will not be covered.

 

My point to RSA is ,it was not wear and tear ,if the pipe had not blocked,the waste pipe would not have leaked.

 

And where does wear and tear begin or end in such a vague exclusion!

 

 

This is my first claim ever on our Buildings Policy,it doeas make you think that it does not pay to be honest with Insurance Companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we had them for flood cover in the north wales floods they would nt pay out right up until the court room doors then they settled plus damages they are about the most horrible insurance company you could ever hope to meet and if i were you i would have them in court as soon as possible take it to the small claims go for it mate make a judge decide ,otherwise they will keep you arguing for years ,just dont mess with them prosecute

patrickq1


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not unusual for insurance policies not to cover the repair to item that caused the damage.

However, they usually cover you for the losses arising as a result, e.g. any water damage.

The repair cost is usually a minor part of the claim so does not usually cause a problem and sometimes the insurer just pays for it or it get lost in a claim.

However, I see that this is not the case with you.

Essentially they will not cover for repairs and maintenance of your house, but should cover the clean up costs.

Notwithstanding do not take insurer's first answer, keep pushing them.


If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GuidoT

 

Are you saying that if my electrical wiring caught fire and burnt the room down I would have to pay the cost of rewiring and redecorating the walls after digging embedded cables out !

 

The principle is the same.

 

The main argument I have with RSA is that they will not pay to reinstate the tiles and fittings that surrounded the pipe.They had to be removed to access the pipe to FIND the leak ,it was the only way to repair and the plumber and builder had to remove the materials that now have to be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would advise that whenever you have these repairs made, have a little hatch so that the pipes are accessible, so this problem doesn't occur again, this is what I have always done, because it is sods law that say that you will want to get to the pipe that you have boxed in.


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider, for example if your problem was discovered before it caused any damage, would it then be covered from an insurance perspective or would you just call out a plumber.

 

It is sometimes not easy to separate the costs of repairing the offending item from the clean up costs as they are sometimes inextricably linked.

 

If possible you should be arguing with the RSA that the tiles had to be replaced because they were damaged by the water and not to repair the pipe.

 

Liability insurance does not cover you for pure economic loss, it is focused on damage to objects (or death or personal injury).

 

I will see if I can locate something for you to read on the subject. I do not expect to find something simple as it a complex area of the law.


If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I expected not very straightfoward, see that below which explains pure economic loss in the context of negligence.

Keating on Building Contracts 206-208.pdf


If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See also here at page 200, section 24.

 

If that lot does not confuse you too much, you are doing well.


If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a tiling contractor i have always sent the estimate to the client before work commences and if the tiles are not stock items but special or discontinued then it means a re tile ,i have never had problems execpt with the one and only company RSA they are notorious for get out clauses...but regardless of get out clause they are liable to pay for the repairs to any work undertaken by the builder ,only if agreed get yourself an independant loss adjuster but make sure they work for you and not rsa

patrickq1


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as a tiling contractor i have always sent the estimate to the client before work commences and if the tiles are not stock items but special or discontinued then it means a re tile ,i have never had problems execpt with the one and only company RSA they are notorious for get out clauses...but regardless of get out clause they are liable to pay for the repairs to any work undertaken by the builder ,only if agreed get yourself an independant loss adjuster but make sure they work for you and not rsa

patrickq1

 

Celticfairplay needs a LOSS ASSESSOR not a Loss Adjuster. Loss Adjusters work for the insurance company. Loss Assessors are independent.:cool::|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved here.


Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celticfairplay

 

Most buildings insurance policies contain a trace and access extension under the Material Damage section, which allows for you to claim for the costs of tracing and accessing such things as leaking pipes. I am very surprised that RSA either do not have such an extension, or are plainly being pretty dim.

 

MC


WOOLWICH -S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 03/03/07 :cool:

LBA sent for non-compliance with Data Protection Act 28/04/07 :mad:

 

ABBEY - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 03/03/07 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope the CEO @rsagroup enjoys his £5 Million wage packet. I, on the other hand, will now have to save money to pay for my damaged porch. I hope the people who read this will think twice before handing their money

over to this group of Leeches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive always maintained that this shower of worms are bordering on the edge of legality (trust us )their quote send out their own loss adjusters who will then delberately try to find fault on your part..just to get out of paying LVis the same company


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do hope the CEO @rsagroup enjoys his £5 Million wage packet. I, on the other hand, will now have to save money to pay for my damaged porch. I hope the people who read this will think twice before handing their money

over to this group of Leeches.

 

 

Hello and welcome to CAG. If you'd like us to help, please start a new thread of your own.

 

 

Best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...